C005 — ACH Matrix¶


Research	R0002 — Research Standards for AI-Assisted Writing
Run	2026-03-13
Claim	C005

Matrix¶

	H1: Widely discussed limitation	H2: Deliberate design choice	H3: COI addressed elsewhere
SRC01-E01: Five domains, no COI	++	++	--
SRC02-E01: "Other bias" removed, was used 15.6%	++	N/A	--
SRC02-E02: Recommends adding funding source	++	-	N/A
SRC03-E01: Sterne defends absence, cites TACIT	-	++	N/A

Legend: - ++ Strongly supports - + Supports - -- Strongly contradicts - - Contradicts - N/A Not applicable to this hypothesis

Diagnosticity Analysis¶

Most Diagnostic Evidence¶

Evidence ID	Why Diagnostic
SRC03-E01	Key differentiator between H1 and H2 — the same evidence that supports H2 (deliberate design) also weakly contradicts H1 (limitation framing) by providing a reasoned defense
SRC02-E01	Strongly contradicts H3 — the removal of "other bias" is explicit and documented, eliminating the possibility COI is addressed elsewhere

Least Diagnostic Evidence¶

Evidence ID	Why Non-Diagnostic
SRC01-E01	Supports both H1 and H2 equally — confirms the factual basis shared by both hypotheses without differentiating between them

Outcome¶

Hypothesis supported: H1 and H2 are both partially supported. The factual elements (five domains, COI absent) are unambiguous. The normative question (deficiency vs. deliberate design) has evidence on both sides.

Hypotheses eliminated: H3 — COI is genuinely absent from RoB 2, not addressed through alternative mechanisms. Eliminated with high confidence.

Hypotheses inconclusive: The distinction between H1 and H2 is ultimately a normative question. The evidence supports both the critics' view (published recommendations to add COI) and the developers' view (published defense of the design). The assessment synthesizes both perspectives.